LETTERS
This article was published in ASHRAE Journal, February 2021. Copyright 2021 ASHRAE. Posted at www.ashrae.org. This article may not be copied and/or distributed
electronically or in paper form without permission of ASHRAE. For more information about ASHRAE Journal, visit www.ashrae.org.
Using Dual-Duct, Dual-VAV to
Reduce Cooling & Heating Loads
“Using Dual-Duct, Dual-VAV to Reduce Cooling &
Heating Loads” by Nabil Nassif, Ph.D., P.E., in the
November 2020 ASHRAE Journal does not address dehu-
midification of the heating unit in a dual-duct system,
which is part of the reason this type of system went out
of favor. There is a reference to the dual-duct strategy
being more applicable to heating-dominated climates,
but there needs to be a more clear discussion of outdoor
air dehumidification since the heating air handler has
no capability for dehumidification. Does the heating
system shut down or go to full recirculation during peri-
ods when dehumidification of outdoor air is required?
Also, I recently considered a dual-duct system for a
cGMP project in which the air change rate was much
higher than the airflow required for cooling. This is a
possible application for a dual-duct system that may still
apply. The focus on reducing simultaneous heating and
cooling is important for energy efficiency, so striving to
break out of the typical VAV reheat system will continue
to be both important and challenging.
Scott Parker, P.E., Member ASHRAE, Raleigh, N.C.
The Author Responds
You raise an important point. The paper did not
directly address the dehumidification of the heating unit
in a dual-duct system because during warm weather
when dehumidification may be needed, this heating unit
turns off and no fresh air is introduced through the unit.
As indicated in Table 5, Case 5, for instance, when the
outdoor air temperature (OAT) is 82°F, only the cold AHU
(AHU1) operates and provides the required ventilation to
the building. In this case, the cold AHU operates exactly
as a single-duct VAV system, yielding the same dehu-
midification challenges of typical VAV systems. The AHU1
unit is equipped with cooling and heating coils that may
be used for dehumidification.
Nabil Nassif, Ph.D. P.E., Member ASHRAE, Cincinnati
COVID-19 and Beyond: A Brief
Introduction to Passenger
Aircraft Cabin Air Quality
It is interesting to read “COVID-19 and Beyond: A Brief
Introduction to Passenger Aircraft Cabin Air Quality”
8 A S H R A E J O U R N A L  ashrae.org  FEBRUARY 2021
by Douglas Stuart Walkinshaw, Ph.D., P.Eng., in the
October 2020 issue of ASHRAE Journal, which reviewed
passenger aircraft cabin air quality under this atmo-
sphere of the SARS-CoV-2 virus outbreak. Studies were
based on possible disease transmission through solid
particulates where virus nucleus can be deposited.
The ventilation designs good for removing solid par-
ticulates would give a clean cabin. COVID-19 can then
be transmitted1 through coronavirus-bearing respira-
tory droplets from carriers. A dry cabin environment2
would evaporate droplets faster, so that the small
SARS-CoV-2 virus of size 50 nm to 200 nm have fewer
substrate spaces on which to deposit. This might reduce
the transmission rate, explaining why even flights3 from
high risk areas had only 11 passengers infected.
Consequently, evaporation effects on liquid droplets
play a key role in virus transmission.1 The transmission
of the virus in a cabin appears not as bad when passen-
gers and the crew are wearing masks all the time.
However, the following should be considered in pre-
venting COVID-19 spread, in addition to what the author
reviewed:2 appropriate cabin crew training to have an
adequate safety management scheme and avoid trans-
mission through direct contacts in small airplane toilets.
References
1. Cheng, C.H., C.L. Chow, W.K. Chow. 2020. “Trajectories of
large respiratory droplets in indoor environment: A simplified
approach.” Building and Environment 183:107196.
2. Walkinshaw, D.S. 2020. “COVID-19 and beyond: a brief
introduction to passenger aircraft cabin air quality.” ASHRAE Journal
(10)12 – 18.
3. Mukul, P. 2020. “Hong Kong suspends Air India’s incoming
flights after string of Covid-positive cases.” The Indian Express Sept.
22. https://tinyurl.com/yycewdez
W.K. Chow, Ph.D., Fellow ASHRAE, and C.L. Chow, Ph.D.
Hong Kong, China
The Author Responds
Your letter raises some interesting points and your
Reference 1 aids in understanding that low indoor rela-
tive humidity (RH) reduces droplet travel distance,
while low air density increases it. It would be interest-
ing to use your equations to predict what maximum
size droplets will become aerosols before plating out on
surfaces in the low humidity (10%), low air density (3/4
atmosphere) aircraft environment.
It is true that a cabin designed to remove infectious
aerosols without mixing and exposure of noninfected
persons (like a laminar flow cleanroom) would give a

clean cabin but not prevent transmission by fomites. But
aircraft cabins are not cleanrooms, and infectious aero-
sols emitted by an infected person travel in the air many
rows as well as laterally.1,2 Further, airborne infection
risks are not small.3,4 A recent review consistently found
that humans produce pathogens predominately as aero-
sols or small respirable particles (<5 microns), with PCR
studies identifying infectious aerosols in the air of rooms
with persons ill with COVID-19, the common cold, influ-
enza A and B, tuberculosis, measles, herpes and chicken
pox.5 Low humidity exacerbates the risk.6
Many “authorities” saying high air change rate is the
criteria for good air quality as far as airborne aero-
sol infections are concerned does not make it true.
Infectious aerosols originate with infected persons cre-
ating and shedding virus—not with visible and hidden
building or aircraft cabin materials creating and shed-
ding virus, not with equipment creating and shedding
virus and not with the frost and moisture behind the
insulation creating and shedding virus. Given that fact,
the rate of infectious virion-free air supply to each per-
son, including each ill person and the persons around
them, governs virion concentration in the air around the
ill persons—not air change rate.
While high air change rates provide some protection,
they also result in the virions in the air being inhaled by
others being fresher and more virulent, with less settling
having occurred and the concentrations higher than
in low air change settings. High air change rates can be
the antithesis of low infectious aerosol exposure when
they are the result of tightly packed together persons
in spaces with low ceilings—the situation with aircraft
passenger cabins, for example. The total virion-free air
being supplied is large, but the amount per person is
not. Speaking of low ceilings, spaces with high ceilings
are naturally safer, because body heat and warm breath
rise to the ceiling, taking with them human-generated
aerosols, and stay there if they are not pushed back
down by ceiling fans and the like.
Equation 2, then, in my paper predicts the total num-
ber of virion aerosols inhaled by persons in the same
space but not their dispersion or individual inhalation.
It does this prediction by accounting for the per occupant
outdoor air supply rate and filtration rate of particles from
the recirculation air supply. It will also accommodate an
estimation of the filtration benefit of mask wearing on
aerosol exposure reduction, which should eliminate viral
LETTERS
TABLE 1  Narrow body and wide body passenger aircraft influenza A virions inhaled
and infections per ill person, I = 9 L/min·p, t = 5 h, N = 76,000 v/h, HID50 =
900 v. Narrow body: OD = 1 m3 /p, V = 9.4 L/s·p, Ve = 0.65. Wide body: OD =
1.6 m3 /p, V = 11.8 L/s·p, Ve = 1.
NARROW NARROW BODY WIDE BODY WIDE BODY
BODY VIRIONS PREDICTED VIRIONS PREDICTED
INHALED INFECTIONS INHALED INFECTIONS
No Mask 9,244 ≤5 4,794 ≤3
Mask 50% 2,311 ≤1 1,199 ≤1
infection risks from surfaces contaminated with fomites
(except for eye touching) and greatly reduce risk from
airborne droplets, both emitted and inhaled. Eye expo-
sure might be important only in hospital-related viral
transmission during ophthalmic practice.3 Mask wearing
will not reduce the infection risks completely, as a just-
completed case study indicates. That study identified a
9.8% to 17.8% COVID-19 attack rate on persons spread
throughout the cabin, some wearing masks, during a 17%
full, seven-hour international flight to Ireland.7
I will assume in the calculations that follow regarding
the August 3 flight from Delhi to Hong Kong that masks
remove 50% of the virions from both our exhaled and
inhaled air. In place of COVID-19 for which there are no
shedding and infectiousness criteria, I will use influenza
A (virions are similar in size to those of COVID-19),3
virion (v) shedding rate and its lowest infectiousness
criteria, which seems appropriate for aircraft due to the
very dry conditions being more favorable to airborne
infection spread due to impairment of nasal mucocili-
ary clearance, innate antiviral defense and tissue repair
function. Table 1 here shows Equation 2 predictions and
all parameters used.
So if influenza A is a valid surrogate and everyone was
wearing masks, it is possible that five COVID-19 infec-
tions occurred during that flight from exposure to six
persons with false-negative preflight tests if they were
all shedding.8 It is also possible that if masks were being
worn, no COVID-19 infections occurred during the flight
or, if there were infections, that these persons had not
yet begun shedding at the time of the post-flight tests.
To these predictions must be added any virions inhaled
prior to the flight and those of the 24,000 v/h coarse
(>5 microns) particles shed by ill persons that were aero-
solized and inhaled before settling or exiting the cabin.
References
1. Bennett, J.S., B.W. Jones, M.H. Hosni, Y. Zhang, et al. 2013.
FEBRUARY 2021  ashrae.org  A S H R A E J O U R N A L 9
LETTERS
“Airborne exposure patterns from a
passenger source in aircraft cabins.”
HVAC&R Research 19(8).
2. United States Transport Command.
2020. “TRANSCOM/AMC Commercial
Aircraft Cabin Aerosol Dispersion Tests.”
https://tinyurl.com/y5qm7u2c. Accessed
12:30PM PDT, Nov. 9th 2020.
3. Scheuch, G. 2020. “Breathing is
enough: for the spread of influenza virus
and SARS-CoV-2 by breathing only.” Journal
of Aerosol Medicine and Pulmonary Drug Delivery
33(4):230 – 234.
4. Morawska, L., D.K. Milton. 2020. “It
is time to address airborne transmission
of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).”
Clinical Infection Diseases 71(9) 2311 – 2313.
5. Fennelly, K. 2020. “Particle sizes
of infectious aerosols: implications
for infection control.” Lancet Respir Med
8(9):914 – 924.
6. Kudo, E., et al. 2019. “Low ambient
humidity impairs barrier function and
innate resistance against influenza
infection.” PNAS 116(22):10905 – 10910.
7. Murphy, N., et al. 2020. “A large
national outbreak of COVID-19 linked
to air travel, Ireland, summer 2020.”
Eurosurveillance 25(42).
8. Shmerling, R.H. 2020. “Which test
is best for COVID-19?” Harvard Health
Publishing, Harvard Medical School. Posted
Aug. 10, updated Sept. 30.
Douglas Stuart Walkinshaw, Ph.D., P.Eng.,
Fellow/Life Member ASHRAE, Ottawa, ON, Canada
What to Consider
When Designing For
N + 1
I note in Figure 3A of David Sellers’
November 2020 column, “What to
Consider When Designing for N + 1,”
that slowing the fans to reduce air-
flow has left them operating very
close to the peak of the fan curve.
Readers should consider an inlet
vane damper in similar situations.
Partly closing an inlet vane damper
reduces flow without dropping the
peak static pressure. Put another
way, it shifts the fan curve to the left,
rather than down and left, resulting
in more stable operation, and pos-
sibly more energy savings.
Ed Chessor, P.Eng., Life Member ASHRAE,
Vancouver, BC, Canada.
10 A S H R A E J O U R N A L  ashrae.org  FEBRUARY 2021
The Author Responds
Your observation is quite valid
and was one reason I was a nervous
wreck when we headed out to test
our theory without really know-
ing what the fan curves looked
like. The inlet vane dampers you
reference would have been a real
asset for the reasons you describe.
(This point is illustrated in the 2020
ASHRAE Handbook—HVAC Systems
and Equipment, Chapter 21, Figure
18, where the devices are called
inlet vanes, and in Figure 15.4 of
Howden-Buffalo’s Fan Engineering—An
Engineer’s Handbook on Fans and Their
Applications, where the devices are
called inlet vanes, https://tinyurl.
com/yyh5j4f7.)
I’ve also heard them referred to
as inlet guide vanes (IGVs), I believe
because they function by directing or
guiding airflow into the impeller in
a way that changes the performance
curve rather than by restricting flow,
which is what dampers generally do.
In any case, our problem was that we
were dealing with an existing system;
the fans simply didn’t have IGVs. So we
worked with what we had: the VFDs.
However, I am not sure inlet vanes
would have been an option for the
application because of the corrosive
exhaust. Some acids we used could etch
silicon, and the system was fabricated
from special acid-resistant materials.
Inlet vanes are mechanical, with
much of the mechanism in the air-
stream. (Photos are here: https://
tinyurl.com/2020-11-ASHRAE-02.)
Thus, I am not sure they would have
been viable in the corrosive exhaust.
I also think, with a “clean sheet of
paper,” if the design had targeted a
two-fan operating mode for normal
operation, the operating point would
have been at a much better spot on
the fan curve. A fan failure could be
accommodated several ways:
• Provide a third fan like Nathan Ho’s
team did (“Performance-Based Ap-
proach to Laboratory Exhaust Systems,”
September 2020 ASHRAE Journal).
• Provide two fans, each equipped
with a larger motor and a wheel rated
for a higher fan class than normal op-
eration would require. If one fan failed,
the other could speed up and deliver
the design condition on its own.
I just did a quick selection and
both options seem theoretically
viable. The three vs. two fans deci-
sion would likely come down to a
first-cost vs. life-cycle cost decision
and an N + 1 consideration.
Two fans with larger motors and
higher wheel classes would probably
have a lower first cost compared to
three fans when the related duct,
electrical and control system infra-
structure required to accommodate
a third fan were considered.
But the two fans would spend most
of their hours operating a low motor
load/motor efficiency/low VFD effi-
ciency condition. (The curves in the
article illustrate this.) Thus, the oper-
ating cost would not be as attractive as
what might be achieved with a three-
fan approach, especially given 24/7
operation and a system that would
likely be in place for a long time.
From an N + 1 perspective, the two-
fan approach would leave you with
no redundancy if the remaining fan
failed prior to repairs. In contrast, the
failure of two of three fans would not
cause a total loss of flow. Safe opera-
tion would likely not be possible on
only one fan. However, you would
have not crashed the fab with the
issues associated with that, giving the
three-fan approach a potential edge.
David Sellers, P.E., Member ASHRAE, Portland, Ore.